tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post7730024387102375364..comments2017-09-26T22:35:15.514+01:00Comments on The IPKat: European patent troll boom spurs Google, Adidas, Intel & Daimler backed IP2Innovate to demand Commission "get tough with US patent trolls"Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02696269280640311441noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-52210760992762433642017-04-21T08:13:28.126+01:002017-04-21T08:13:28.126+01:00Kindly note that the UPC fee for a COUNTERclaim fo...Kindly note that the UPC fee for a COUNTERclaim for revocation is between EUR 11k and EUR 20k, depending on the value of the case. Especially if the defendant in the infringement case is an SME, it is unlikely that the maximum revocation fee of EUR 20k will have to be paid, because this only occurs if the value of the case exceeds EUR 2 million. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-29032924521951679482017-04-20T11:24:05.323+01:002017-04-20T11:24:05.323+01:00The UPC has an extremely important pro-troll featu...The UPC has an extremely important pro-troll feature: the court fee for a counterclaim for revocation of a patent is €20,000. This ridiculously high fee to defend yourself against infringement of a clearly invalid patent does nothing other than facilitate the classic troll behaviour of threatening (UPC) infringement action if a relatively small settlement (perhaps €10,000) isn&#39;t paid.<br /><br />This court fee alone will make the UPC a troll&#39;s paradise for extorting money from SMEs. All they need to do is get hold of an overly broad patent. Helpfully, the EPO now seems to be issuing more and more of those:<br /><br />http://tuftythecat.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/the-epo-issues-invalid-patents-too.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-46330711769050089462017-04-20T09:05:04.223+01:002017-04-20T09:05:04.223+01:00The UPC system has important anti-troll features t...The UPC system has important anti-troll features that the US system does not have.<br />1. Loser pays, so that starting litigation is not risk-free, while in the US the loser only pays in exceptional cases.<br />2. A litigant may have too provide security that he can pay the litigation costs of the other party, so that - unlike in the US - it does not help the troll if the claimant is a special purpose vehicle that only owns the litigated patents.<br />3. No outrageously costly litigation costs, so that defendants don&#39;t have the same need as in the US to just settle for any amount that is lower than the expected litigation costs charged by the defendant&#39;s own lawyers. <br />4. No lay juries but expert judges in a specialized patent court.<br /><br />So, there is no need whatsoever to weaken the UPC litigation system. It should remain possible to adequately protect investments in innovation by means of injunctions imposed on companies that the expert courts has found to infringe valid patents.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-10184169178163152572017-04-19T19:09:28.704+01:002017-04-19T19:09:28.704+01:00Interesting debate which leads to the question of ...Interesting debate which leads to the question of to what extent are we going to curtail the patent rights of PAE&#39;s and on what grounds? Surely large corporates are only one voice. What about more general public policy considerations to curtailing patent rights? Do we give freedom to operate to anyone developing a useful technology, and somehow work out how to compensate patent owners who lose out? That is an impossibly complex question to address. We cannot simply focus on injunctions and damages as IP2I want us to as that seems discriminatory towards PAE&#39;s. Patents are meant to encourage innovation at every level, including those individuals and universities that sell their patent rights to PAE&#39;s. By changing laws to decrease the value of patents held by PAE&#39;s we are imposing a new regulatory rule that would need to be thought about carefully. <br /><br />I think the present problems have been caused by the fact that governments have never properly addressed the public policy issues around patents. When should we cut back patent rights? That is potentially an incredibly important matter, and we cannot simply do so at the behest of IP2I which so clearly represents the interests of large corporatesPro-patentnoreply@blogger.com